1 / 15

Binomial Example: Testing Psychic Abilities Using statistics

Binomial Example: Testing Psychic Abilities Using statistics . “Remote Viewing” developed as part of classified government program called “Stargate”. Psi/Psychic/ESP/Anomalous Cognition. Having information that could not have been gained through the known senses.

Olivia
Download Presentation

Binomial Example: Testing Psychic Abilities Using statistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Binomial Example:Testing Psychic Abilities Using statistics “Remote Viewing” developed as part of classified government program called “Stargate”

  2. Psi/Psychic/ESP/Anomalous Cognition Having information that could not have been gained through the known senses. • Telepathy: Info from another person • Clairvoyance: Info from another place • Precognition: Info from the future • Correlation: Simultaneous access to info For proof -> Source isn’t important. For explanation -> Source is important.

  3. Controlled Experiments to Test Psychic Abilities Crucial elements: 1. Safeguards to rule out cheating or ordinary means of communication 2. Knowledge of probabilities of various outcomes by chance alone Examples... are these okay? 1. I am thinking of a number from 1 to 5. Guess it. 2. My assistant upstairs has shuffled a deck of cards (well!) and picked one. What suit is it? Examples of forced choiceexperiments. Have someone guess n times. Can be analyzed using binomial distribution.

  4. Receiver 10:00 Feedback Monitor Assistant Remote Viewing ProtocolMeets condition #1 (safeguards) 15 Minutes 10:05

  5. Example of an Amazing Match(Experiment at SAIC/Stanford) Key MountainBarn or Large CabinShadowShadows of Mtns.TreesRoad PathAmerican Rockies orMaybe Alps

  6. Typical Response – Novice (Recent Experiment) intersection,notch, groove wave, sea wall gap

  7. How NOT to Judge the Response Can’t use subjective match – too much room for personal bias.

  8. Rank-Order Judging 1 2 4 3

  9. An Experiment has manySessions • Before the experiment, a “target pool” is created - many packs of 4 dissimilar sets of photos (or short videos). • Before each session begins a pack of 4 is randomly selected, then target within it (e.g. windmills). The sessiontakes place, producing a response. • After the session, a judge is given the response and the 4 choices from that target pack. Judge must assign the 4 ranks (and is of course blind to correct answer). • For each session, result = the rank assigned to correct target, or “direct hit” if it gets 1st place rank. • We will look at direct hits only, which is binomial.

  10. Experiments, Sessions,Probability • Summary statistic for entire experiment(many sessions): • n = number of sessions. • By chance, p = probability of “direct hit” = 1/4 • X = number of direct hits, X is binomial • Meets Condition #2: Knowledge of probabilities of various outcomes by chance alone.

  11. Statistical Analysis • We can test null & alternative hypotheses: Null: Chance alone can explain results Alternative: At least some participants can guess at better than chance Suppose an experiment has n sessions, k hits • P-value = probability of at least k successes in binomial n, ¼ • Can also get confidence interval for true p

  12. P-value and C.I. Results of Free Response Experiments (for 1995 report for Congress) Hit rates assume there were four choices; chance = 25% U.S. Government Studies in Remote Viewing: • SRI International (1970's and 1980's) n = 966 trials, k = 329, so 34% hits p-value = 4.3  10-11, 95% C.I. 31% to 37% • SAIC n = 455 trials, k = 160, so 35% hits p-value = 5.7  10-7, 95% C.I. 30% to 40%

  13. More results from 1995 review Ganzfeld experiments (similar to remote viewing): • Psychophysical Research Laboratories, Princeton n = 355 trials, hit rate = 34.4%, p-value = .00005, C.I. 29.4% to 39.6% • University of Amsterdam, Netherlands (1990's) n = 124 trials, hit rate = 37%, p-value = .0019, C.I. 29% to 46% • University of Edinburgh, Scotland (1990's) n = 97 trials, hit rate = 33%, p-value = .0476, C.I. 25% TO 44% • Rhine Research Institute, North Carolina (1990's) n = 100 trials, hit rate = 33%, p-value = .0446, C.I. 24% to 42%

  14. More Recent Analysis of 58 Studies, Overall hit rate = 33% (chance = 25%) All studies

  15. Online Tests http://www.gotpsi.org Has a “quick remote viewing” test where you are shown 5 pictures, and asked which one you think is the correct answer. Also has various card guessing tests, mostly based on binomial.

More Related